Anthony Marr's CARE-7 tour blog #16 - 16 May 2010

Albuquerque NM --> El Paso TX

Both my global warming speeches in Albuquerque yesterday evening and in
El Paso this afternoon have risen on to a higher plane than those before. I
have incorporated a long term solution to the global ecological crisis as an
integral part of my "doomsday prophet" presentation, giving it a positive
conclusion, with a bright light at the end of the long dark tunnel. It is
Integrative Transcendence. (see below.)

Adriana introducing my talk.

Adriana and her dog.

Thanks are due to Mikki of Albuquerque (last name concealed as a rule for
security reasons) for her hospitality in offering me free lodging, who wrote
me today that her dog Professor was missing me already, and to Adriana for
hosting the Albuquerque event yesterday evening, who introduced my [Homo
Sapiens! SAVE YOUR EARTH!] talk, assuring a woman in the audience who said
that she had known about global warming that what I had to say, no one had
heard before.

Mikki on upper left, Adriana on upper right.

Hunter mom giving me dirty look.

Today, I drove from Albuquerque NM to El Paso TX arriving at my host
Susan's amazing rural property by 1:30 pm. Near the NM/TX border, in
southern New Mexico, I encountered two large cattle factory farming
operations, where I could almost smell the potent greenhouse gas methane
emitted unrestrained into the atmosphere.

My El Paso talk was introduced by Suki Sargent, wife of Richard Sargent,
both of whom I met back in 2004 in my first Compassion for Animals Road
Expedition (CARE-1) conducted with Brenda Davis and her then 15 year-old son
Cory Davis.

Dog paw prints on my chest - a definite sign of welcome.

Suki Sargent and friends.

With a very progressive young lady from India.

Suki Sargent introducing my talk.

Susan on far left, Richard Sargent front left.

Tomorrow, Susan will take me for a visit to Hueco Tanks Historical State
Park to see its ancient artifacts, after which I will take the 10 hour drive
to San Antonio for the May 18 event hosted by Kaz.

Anthony Marr's Green Hornet lecturing the other cars.

It is about time I should present something about Integrative
Transcendence in this blog. Following is an excerpt from Chapter 1 of my
second book [Homo Sapiens! SAVE YOUR EARTH!", whose title is the same as my
lecture. It depicts a conversation between Raminothna, an extra-terrestrial
intelligence, and myself, when I was sitting on a mountain-top, gazing at
the moon:

Raminothna: "I wish I could come and sit with you," the voice said to me.

I: "Why can't you?"

R: "By the physical laws, I can; by the social laws, I cannot."

I: "Why not?"

R: "Interstellar Non-Interference Principle."

I: "Who are you?"

R: "I am Raminothna, the fortunate and the called upon, at your service."

I: "Okay, let me rephrase. What are you?"

R: Normally, what one is towers over what one says, but in our case, to
you, what I say is more important than what I am.

I: Still, it does not mean that what you are is not important. So, again,
what are you?

R: When you can tell me what you are, you will know what I am.

I: What am I? Another age-old question. I don't suppose it helps for me
to say that I'm human.

R: Not particularly. It is about the same as an ant saying to you, "I'm
an ant," if the ant does not understand what an ant is. Conversely, it makes
no sense to the ant if you tell it what a human is.

I: But if I tell you that my species is the one responsible for driving
this planet to runaway global heating, you might be able to tell me, for
example, that you are an interstellar planet saver, or savior, here to save
the Earth for us."

R: This is a sharp argument. But, no, I am not a planet saver, nor a
savior.

I: Then why are you here?

R: To observe, to understand, to analyze, to evaluate, to report, and,
where you are concerned, to advise, and, if the worse came to worst, to stay
with you so that your demise would at least not be too lonely.

I: To advise is the best you can do for us?

R: The best anyone not of your planet can do for you, due to the
interstellar non-interference protocol.

I: Why can't you just give us the blueprint for a perpetual motion
machine? All problems would be solved.

R: But for three things. One, the solution then would not be yours. Two,
knowing your species, you would wage war with it as much as or even more so
than wage peace. And three, evading the test is equal to failing it.

I: Test? What test?

R: The cosmic test that all intelligent and technological species sooner
or later have to take.

I: Again, what test? Whether or not we can survive ourselves?

R: To begin with.

I: What else?

R: Whether you can save your planet from mass extinction due to global
warming, as you yourself have been trying to do, because if only you survive
while 20 million species die because of you, you will just go elsewhere in
the universe to rape, pillage, plunder and murder.

I: Tall order, especially considering the corner we have painted
ourselves into, or should I say the mess we have made in every corner of the
world.

R: Tough test, no question.

I: But why? Why do we have to be tested at all. Why can't we just live
happily ever after?

R: First, because this is not a fairy tale. Second, because your world is
finite, as are your needs, but not your wants. Sooner or later demand will
exceed supply, and the environment will be irreparably overwhelmed.

I: The overwhelming has in fact begun.

R: Thus, your cosmic test. But do not take it personally. This happens on
every planet with intelligence and civilization at one critical point in its
life, to whatever galaxy it may belong.

I: So, some make it and some don't?

R: Yes.

I: And you won't lift a finger to save those who fail?

R: That is a pretty cold way of saying something that has to be.

I: According to whom?

R: The interstellar non-interference protocol.

I: Based upon what? Some kind of cosmic law?

R: Simply: Let those that are destructive commit self-destruction, and
let those that are constructive construct their own stellar and interstellar
future.

I: Even if the destructive are beautiful and lovable?

R: Are you referring to yourselves?

I: Well, yes and no. We can be very ugly and despicable, too.

R: So my answer is: Yes.

I: What is the percentage of passes and failures?

R: I cannot tell you this either.

I: Why not?

R: If the success rate was high, you would slack off. If low, you might
lose confidence in yourself. It is best just to do your best.

I: Do you want us to fail, or do you want us to pass?

R: Here is an analogy. In the incubation room are 1 million eggs. Some
will not hatch. Of course the caretaker would want as many eggs to hatch as
possible.

I: But you won't do anything to help those eggs you know won't hatch?

R: Is this a trick question?

I: In what sense can it be a trick question?

R: If I said, no, I will not help those I know will not hatch, then you
would say that since I am here to help, your "egg" will hatch.

I: I'm not as intelligent as I look.

R: Alright, I will say this. If I knew that a planet is beyond help, I
would devote my time and energy to another that has a chance.

I: So, this planet Earth here has a chance?

R: I am here, am I not?

I: What kind of a chance? As I said, runaway global heating has begun,
and it can only get worse, exponentially, until all the forests dry to
desert, all the oceans become an acid bath, and the entire biosphere turns
to dust. If allowed to run its course, runaway global heating won't end
until all the methane clathrates have been released from the permafrost and
the ocean floor. Where there are 700 gigatons of carbon in the atmosphere
today, there will be 12,000 gigatons then. Where the concentration is 385
parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere today, it will be almost 6,000
parts per million. The Earth will become a second Venus with the atmospheric
temperature in the hundreds of degrees. No life can exist under those
conditions, not even heat resistant and sulfur loving bacteria. If the mere
0.6 degrees Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit) global temperature rise today
since the pre-industrial times is enough to begin melting the permafrost,
which releases vast quantities of methane (see HYPERLINK "http://www.hope-care.org/"
\t "_blank" www.HOPE-CARE.org , global warming section, Arctic subsection),
what is there to stop permafrost melting at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 degrees warmer
than today? The methane-caused global heating will feedback upon itself, and
the cycle will become a spiral to oblivion. As long as global warming reigns
there is no such thing as stabilization at any temperature because methane
release is beyond our control. And our citizens of profit, our corporations
of greed and our governments of corruption will make damn sure that will
happen.

R: Where is the second part of your sentence?

I: What second part?

R: The positive part.

I: Is there a positive part?

R: In everything is a positive part. Even the blood-sucking mosquito is
food for fish and birds.

I: So, what is the positive part about humankind? I see nothing. Life on
Earth would do much better without our species screwing things up left,
right and center.

R: For a time.

I: What do you mean "for a time"?

R: Until the next asteroid came crashing down.

I: A replay of this planet's fifth major mass extinction bout, the one
that wiped out all the dinosaurs.

R: Imagine T-Rex being able to fire a rocket with a nuclear bomb to
deflect that asteroid's trajectory.

I: Incredible.

R: If this happened today, most major species, including tigers, eagles,
dolphins, whales… would be wiped out like the dinosaurs. Imagine the rhesus
monkeys firing a rocket with a nuclear bomb to deflect this asteroid's
course.

I: Equally incredible, not even the chimpanzees can do that.

R: How about the human primates then?

I: I see what you mean.

R: You have discovered that your planet has experienced five major mass
extinction bouts in the geologic past, only one of which, the fifth, was
caused by an asteroid strike. The other four were caused by climate change.
Which was the worst?

I: The third, the End-Permian Mass Extinction 251 million years ago,
wiped out 75% of all land species and 95% of all marine species.

R: Obviously climate change is at least as potent as a huge asteroid
strike in terms of killing power.

I: Haven't thought of it that way.

R: So my question remains: What is the technological primate going to do
about this anthropogenic round of climate change?

R: These trillion-dollar-ventures could work, but how do you intend to
fund them?

I: I have launched an online petition at HYPERLINK "http://www.thepetitionsite.com/"
\t "_blank" www.thepetitionsite.com addressed to the UN Secretary General
Ban Ki-Moon, asking him to orchestrate the formation of a
$120-billion-per-year Global Green Fund for such projects, by means of a 10%
across-the-board reduction of the $1.2 trillion global military expenditure.

R: I wish you success. But would technology alone suffice?

I: No. We need a social and economic reform, some say revolution, as a
means of adapting to the new environment imposed by global warming.

R: What kind of revolution?

I: A friend of mind calls it "Re-Evolution." And another friend calls it
"E-Revolution." One way or another, things have got to change, and change
fundamentally.

R: Such as?

I: Socially speaking, greed and selfishness should be replaced by
altruism and unconditional giving and sharing. Economically, the silver
standard, the gold standard, even the money standard itself, should be
replaced by a moral standard based on awareness of facts, knowledge of
truth, reverence for nature, compassion for animals, love for the planet,
responsibility to our children and all life on Earth, and a higher
self-determined destiny.

R: And what is this destiny?

I: I have no idea.

R: If you do not know your destination, and you travel, what do you
become?

I: A drifter.

R: What is the purpose of a drifter?

I: None.

R: What is the purpose of the human species?

I: According to whom?

R: Humans.

I: Our species as a whole? Up to now, none. The best we've come up with
is some kind of philosophical or religious Utopia that is all theory and no
substance, and where some scenarios could actually lead our species into
hell.

R: So, your species is a drifter?

I: Up to now, at best. I do think that we need a beautiful destination to
strive for. A worthy destiny to fulfill. A compelling vision of what we're
trying to create.

R: So, where are they? What are they?

I: I don't know.

R: If you have no destination; what about a path, the right way that can
lead you to the best destination, wherever it be?

I: "Path" in Chinese is "Tao." The Chinese advanced Taoism a few hundred
hears before Christ, in which context "Tao" means "Way of the Cosmos." The
Tao Teh Ching says, "In the Cosmos, Man should accord his way to the Earth,
the Earth to the sky, the sky to the Tao, and the Tao simply is, according
to its own nature." So, if we follow this Way of the Cosmic, we should
arrive at the right destination, wherever it be.

R: So, what is this Way of the Cosmos, this Tao?

I: Unfortunately, the Tao Teh Ching also says, "The Tao that can be
spoken is not the eternal Tao."

R: So, there is a path, but you can never tell where it is?

I: That's about right.

R: So, what good is this system of thought?

I: So far, no good, and Taoism has since degenerated from a school of
philosophy into a house of sorcery.

R: What if this Tao can be known, and spoken?

I: Then it would be truly enlightening, and perhaps even planet-saving.
Why? Can it?

R: First thing to note: With the unknown, never say "Can't."

I: So, Lao Tzu was wrong, to say that the Tao cannot be spoken?

R: You can answer this for yourself, after you have spoken it.

I: Me? To speak the Unspeakable? Hold on for a second there. I'm not a
miracle worker. I cannot conceive the inconceivable, and do the undoable.

R: You can, and you will, before the night is out.

I: You're kidding me. More than two thousand years without an answer, and
I could do it within five hours?

R: Maybe within the hour, if you perform optimally.

I: Well, we'd better get started ASAP then, eh?

R: Immediately-or-sooner always suits me fine.

I: So, give me a kickstart.

R: Tell me. Have you heard of the "Superorganism"?

I: Yes. It was a term first coined by social insect researcher, Morton
Wheeler, in 1937, referring to an insect society – of social insects like
wasps, ants, bees and termites – as a single living organism of a higher
order, or level of organization, that is, society as organism. But since the
constituent individual insects of an insect society are themselves
organisms, Wheeler dubbed an insect society a "superorganism." Edward O.
Wilson, a pioneer in sociobiology, defines the superorganism as "a
collection of single creatures that together possess the functional
organization implicit in the formal definition of organism."

R: Do you see any repetitive pattern yet?

I: Repetitive pattern? No. What repetitive pattern? What for?

R: For finding the Path, the Way of the Cosmos, the Universal Masterplan,
the Tao. To know the future by knowing the past.

I: Well, not yet.

R: What is that to your left?

I: It looks like an anthill.

R: What is in the anthill?

I: One this size would contain upwards of hundreds of thousands of ants,
which are differentiated into several castes – the queen, the major workers,
the minor workers, the seasonal winged reproductives called alates, and the
soldiers – which then cooperate as a functioning whole.

R: What is an ant a society of?

I: An ant? I'm not sure what you mean. It is a social insect, and we have
established that an ant society, such as this anthill, is a superorganism.

R: Yes, but what is an ant a society of?

I: Are you saying that an individual ant is a society itself?

R: Is it not?

I: Well, if an individual ant is a society, then it would be a society of
its own body cells.

R: How can this happen?

I: I think in much the same way as how the ants form their society – by
differentiation and cooperation.

R: Give me some specifics. When did it happen?

I: Before about 600 million years ago, there were no metabions (multicellular
organisms). Only undifferentiated cells, each living a private life of its
own. But eventually, inevitably, by the principle of differentiation and
cooperation, cells developed sociality, and formed their own cellular
societies, at first like sponges and corals, but eventually centrally
organized cellular societies like a dragonfly or an ant, or a bird, or even
a human.

R: So, the individual cells had to give up some of their small freedoms
for this transcendent integration. What benefits could there be?

I: "Transcendent Integration," I like that. The benefits were huge. An
amoeba, an undifferentiated organism, can crawl on the bottom of a pond at,
say, a foot a day top-speed non-stop. But differentiated and cooperative
cells, by collectively becoming a higher organism like a dragonfly, which
lays its eggs into the pond, attain a quantum leap of power and a higher
level of freedom. The cells of a dragonfly, for example, lost their small
freedom of individual amoeba-like movements, but together, their society –
the dragonfly – can fly over the mountain at 50 miles per hour, when the
amoeba cannot even perceive beyond the confines of the pond, much less
emerge from it on its own.

R: So, have you seen any repetitive pattern yet?

I: Beginning to. One – organism as society on all levels of organization.
Two – society as organism on all levels. Three, social and nonsocial units
on all levels. Four, differentiation and cooperation on all levels.

R: Excellent. Now, what is a cell a society of?

I: Its own molecules, I think. Each cell is a society of its own "social
molecules." Each also operates by the principle of differentiation and
cooperation.

R: And the molecules?

I: Each a society of "social quarks"?

R: Now, look at Vancouver .

I: I'm looking at it.

R: What is a city in this scheme of things?

I: A city is like a human equivalent of an anthill or a bee hive, or a
wasp net, or a termite mound.

R: So, what is Vancouver ?

I: Vancouver is a superorganism of differentiated and cooperative
Vancouverites, which are social humans.

R: Is Vancouver as an organism social or nonsocial.

I: I would consider Vancouver a social organism, in terms of its relation
to other Canadian cities.

R: What is the society to which Vancouver belongs?

I: Canada .

R: And what is Canada in this scheme of things?

I: Canada is a superorganism comprising all differentiated and
cooperative Canadian cities.

R: As an organism, is Canada social or nonsocial?

I: Social, kind of.

R: Kind of?

I: Because although the nations are beginning to be social amongst one
another, they have not yet formed themselves a higher organism. There is
still conflict and warfare, and international relations are still more
competitive than cooperative. Most definitive of all, the nations still
uphold their sovereignty as supreme. So, I would deem the rise of life on
Earth currently reaching the level of the nations as organisms, but no
higher, yet.

R: When the integration of the nations is complete, what will the result
be?

I: I think this will mean the rise of a higher level or organization than
the national level, and the emergence of a superorganism composed of
differentiated and cooperative nations – the planet Earth herself as an
organism, to whom the various nations are her various planetary organs, if
they continue to identify themselves as nations, that is.

R: What about the military?

I: Just as there is no mutual defense system amongst the organs of the
same organism, there will be no mutual defense systems amongst the
transcendently integrated nations of the planet Earth.

R: What will happen to the current military forces of the nations then?

I: I think the multinational military forces of today will merge into a
single planetary defense force against external threats such as asteroids,
and perhaps alien invasions.

R: Alien invasions, à la the War of the Worlds? Listen, if we wanted to
invade you or conquer your planet, we would have done so thousands of years
ago, effortlessly.

I: This system of reality looks like a fine blueprint for world peace.

R: It also illustrates our Interstellar Nursery of Planetary Eggs.

I: Planet as egg. An interesting metaphor.

R: Not metaphorical. Literal.

I: A planet is literally an egg?

R: With a gestation period and a metamorphic schedule.

I: Really?

R: Tell me. What is the gestation period of the Geo-Embryo Earth?

I: The Geo-Embryo?

R: What do you think it is?

I: The Biosphere?

R: And what is the gestation period of the Geo-Embryo of the planet
Earth?

I: Are you saying that the timing of the current crisis is predetermined?

R: Based upon its initial physical properties when it was first formed,
every planet capable of supporting life and civilization has its own
predetermined gestation period, yes, including the planet Earth.

I: Cosmic Egg Earth's gestation period? I don't know.

R: When was it formed?

I: 4.6 billion years ago.

R: If it succeeds in its Integrative Transcendence, when would it happen?

I: Within the next century or two I suspect.

R: Then Cosmic Egg Earth's gestation period is?

I: 4.6 billion years!

R: Good. Now, some embryos go through several stages of metamorphosis. Do
you see this in the Geo-Embryo of the planet Earth?

I: I now certainly do. Every time a new level emerges from a lower one,
it is a new stage of metamorphosis. So, since the Earth has the Molecular
level, and the Cellular level, and the Metabion level (multicellular
organisms) and the Tribal level (animal societies and human tribal
cultures), and the City level, and the National level, and finally the
Planetary level, all in all there are seven levels of organization and six
phases of metamorphosis in between.

R: Is there a metamorphic schedule?

I: This would be the time table of the different levels emerging from the
one beneath it. So, we should start with the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago
as the time of the formation of atomic and molecular matter from the quarks
below. Second, the Cellular level arose on Earth about 3 billion years ago.
Third, the Metabion level arose about 600 million years ago. Fourth, the
Tribal level arose in the form of the first insect societies, I'd say 120
million years ago. Fifth, the National level, I would think not of humans,
but of whales and dolphins. It would be cetacean super-societies, comprising
many constituent family pods, over a large oceanic area. The cetaceans
evolved from land animals about 16 million years ago. So these
super-societies may have formed 10 million years ago. And sixth, the
Planetary level, which should emerge about now, if it succeeds in doing so.

R: Form a series with these numbers.

I: 0, 10 million, 120 million, 600 million, 3 billion, 13.7 billion.

R: What does this series look to you?

I: I think it could look like an exponential series, but we need to know
the true zero point, which I doubt would be set at the time of the "organismization"
of the planet Earth. It might be the point of the Integrative Transcendence
of the Universe Itself.

R: What will happen to Earth after she has succeeded in integratively
transcending into being a Planetary Organism?

I: By the now very obvious repetitive pattern, the Planetary Organism
Earth will at first be nonsocial. But given time, it will reproduce, and
begat offspring throughout the Solar System, which will eventually become
social amongst one another, and again by means of Integrative Transcendence,
ultimately forming the Stellar Organism Sol, on yet a higher Stellar level
of organization.

R: What after that?

I: There are upwards of 100 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy, of
which Sol is only one. I think this spiral can unfold about three times
within the galaxy before reaching the eventual formation of the Galactic
Organism Milky Way.

R: And after that?

I: There are upwards of 100 billion galaxies in the Universe, of which
Milky Way is only one. I think this spiral can unfold about three times in
the intergalactic realm as well before reaching the emergence of the
ultimate Universal Organism.

R: If you were to choose 3 words for this Universal Organism, what would
they be?

I: Oh my God!

R: Are these the three words?

I: No!

R: What is God?

I: God is believed by the vast majority of this democracy to be the
creator of the Universe.

R: God is a matter of religion. The religion by which you have been
indoctrinated is Catholic. So what three words do the Catholics use to
describe God?

I: Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent.

R: And what three words would you use to describe the Universal Organism?

I: Since it embraces the entire Universe, it will be all present. Since
it encompasses all the knowledge of all the civilizations within it, it can
be said to be all knowing. And since an amoeba and a human are only one
level of organization apart, noting the quantum leap in power between the
two, and since the Universal Organism is a good 10 levels above the
individual human, it can be said to be all powerful. Thus, the three words
for the Universal Organism could only be Omnipresent, Omniscient and
Omnipotent!!!

R: Are there any differences between the Universal Organism and your God?

I: Well, yes. One, It did not create the Universe, but it is the evolving
Universe. Two, It did not create us; instead, we will be part and parcel of
its own self-creation. And three, there is nothing supernatural about this
Godly being; It is all natural.

R: And how would you name such a worldview?

I: This worldview encompasses the entire Cosmos, and is based on all
fields of science, so I would call it the Omniscientific Cosmology.

R: And what would the central teaching of the Omniscientific Cosmology
be?

I: The Tao spoken.

R: So speak it, Homo Sapiens of Earth, speak the "Unspeakable."

I: Integrative Transcendence.

R: And how can you apply Integrative Transcendence to save your planet
Earth from its current global ecological crisis?

I: Since with every higher level of Integrative Transcendence comes a
quantum leap in power, the integrative transcendence of the national
organisms into the one and only Planetary Organism Earth will like wise
produce a quantum leap in power, with which the Planetary Organism Earth can
save itself.